MORE HELP, PLEASE

[amee_patla_na]

KK another debate...but this one is like a "debate off". From 8 ppl, whoever are the last 4 standing will go debate ppl from the whole school & then whoever wins that, you debate schools around us, etc etc.

So I need as many points as I can get. And try not to give me the blatently obvious ones. I do have have a bit of intellegence at least.

Ok my topic is:
Forests & trees should be cut down to make housing complexes.

I can choose to be either a pro OR a con. But obviously, being the environmentalist I am Im a CON. So gimi points other than the obvious, as to why forsts & trees should be preserved...esp in Canada-->we're so abundant with trees.

thanks!!

[Amar-Sonar-Bangla]

It is difficult to argue against cutting down the trees in a country full of them! In addition, housing near the Central Business District (CBD) will actually cut down on daily commuting for the local workforce, consequently reducing emissions and the number of work hours lost each day. Thus increasing productivity. Even increased housing in the suburbs helps to absorb the excess population. Sorry APN, I'm not helping any, am I?


I suppose one can argue that building extra housing will only encourage the inflow of Canukies looking for a livelihood. Building the housing complexes would change the demography of the local area. The increase of young peoples and their young families moving into the area will change it forever. One day a sleepy haven of suburbia and the next, the hub of a new development. Although this isn't an argument strictly based on the environment, it may prove persuasive with regards local people.


There are also all the traditional 'tree hugging' arguments, but I am sure you've thought of them. Child prodigy that you are.

[Star]

Originally posted by amee_patla_na
KK another debate...but this one is like a "debate off". From 8 ppl, whoever are the last 4 standing will go debate ppl from the whole school & then whoever wins that, you debate schools around us, etc etc.

So I need as many points as I can get. And try not to give me the blatently obvious ones. I do have have a bit of intellegence at least.

Ok my topic is:
Forests & trees should be cut down to make housing complexes.

I can choose to be either a pro OR a con. But obviously, being the environmentalist I am Im a CON. So gimi points other than the obvious, as to why forsts & trees should be preserved...esp in Canada-->we're so abundant with trees.

thanks!!

cool this is like 8mile but with a plotline..

okay here's wot u gotta do - get past the amateurs by mooning at them..

thennnnn wen u get to the last round - u need to find ure opponent's weakpoint.. so like in the film, the guy went to public school - in ure scenario, u'll prob find that the guy probably went to Lumberjack school (esp being Canadian and all): "But i know something about you
You went to Woodhouse, that's a Lumberjack school
What's the matter dawg? You embarrased?
This guy's a tree-cutter, his real name's Bob"


that should work




[Edited by Star on 14th February 2004 at 04:55]

[amee_patla_na]

lol star...lumberjack school...lol

perhaps thats how debates work in the UK. Not in Canada though. we win thru pure intellect & skill. something we Canadians are known to have an abundance of.


so try again, will ya please

[Marawak_3]

Well Trouble, I reckon there are arguments both for and against cuttin down the trees but I'll give you some of the cons, and I'll try not to give you the obvious ones

1) An increase in housing areas suggests an opening for more and more immigrants ...... this isn't racist or prejudiced, but think of the consequences of an overpopulation of immigrants. UK is a classic example of a system that is ready to fall apart because of it. If they increase the housing too much, they can lose track of who comes in and out and stuff like that. Think of every angle......it may start out as one area, BUT -->....

-----------------------------------------------------------

...2) If they destroy trees to make housing areas, this suggests to me that will eventually have plans for future development of more and more areas of trees. The more they realise they can cut, the more they will cut because $$$$ talks. Politics knows no ends Lovey

-----------------------------------------------------------

3) Depending on the area they are developing, the ground may and probably will need extensive work in order to lay foundations etc etc..... so it won't just be trees they cut; they will be removing underbrushes, and an awful lot of earth soil, stones and organisms etc. At this point, if some smart@ss PRO voter says that they will replant the trees somewhere, you argue that they wont do that; they will probably burn them..... its all about leverage man

----------------------------------------------------------

4)Even if they don't cut down more than originally planned, housing complexes will inevitably come with new roads and /or transportation ideas. Along will come the constant added burden of pollution etc and damage or disease a lot of the trees around it. This might be weaker in a debate because this would take years and years, but your retort to this would be that "we should be thinking about further into the future; the long term effects as well as the short term" You knew that, I know

-----------------------------------------------------------

5)If, as you say, the abundance of trees in Panada is as well-known as you claim, the destruction of them will slowly change public opinion of the place.....possibly eventually leading to less tourism etc... if you change a place to a threshold it loses its appeal. It would be like knockin down parts of the Rockies; it may only be part, but its still no longer the same.


Apart from these three the only real arguments are the obvious ones ... i.e. trees produce oxygen blah blah blah. Good Luck Debatin!!!

[amu]

Doesnt canada need all the immigrants it can get. Its a bit empty. It should build all the complexes required to keep housing costs down.

Nature will recover the environment at a later time if it becomes disused - 100-1000-10000 years.

If you think in terms greater than the life span of humans - then what you do now is not important. Push development if it makes money or improves living conditions.

I look out in london and see trees everywhere - obviously not close together as in a forest but enough to line streets and roads.

If at a future time, london became empty of people then the trees would recover and become forest once again.

Push development if you get the investment capital.

[Star]

Ame's,

I like the tactics the guys above are suggesting..


basically you blurb out a thesis about how wonderful trees are... ("i close my eyes and it's no longer a maple tree i see before me, but nature's epitome of Aishwariya")...

bore the opponent into a state of stupor, such they can empathise with the experience of being a tree - then maybe they'll have sympathy for the opposing view...


wait for the defences to be weak then stick in my killer line about lumberjack-school.

and then we may have a victory on our hands.




jungle is massiv (no pun intended)